'Chicken Tax' on Pickup Imports Is Likely to Disappear

V-6 Group Fuel 2 II

Thanks in large part to the possible ratification of a pair of new trade agreements negotiated by the Obama administration — the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — the 25 percent "chicken tax" placed on imported midsize pickup trucks could be more quickly minimized or disappear all together.

According to Automotive News, the tariff imposed to protect American auto companies by saddling imported pickups with an additional tax to price them out of competition could be phased out to make it easier for global midsize pickups to be sold in the U.S.

Although it's a complicated issue, some experts predict that no matter how easy the new trade agreements make bringing new vehicles to the U.S. marketplace, we're not likely to see the midsize pickup segment grow quickly. Even though there are several midsize pickups that are not sold in the U.S. — the Ford Ranger, Volkswagen Amorak, Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Triton and Mazda BT-50 — meeting the difficult U.S. safety regulations as well as having enough money to build a plant (estimated to cost $2 to $3 billion) will likely keep the segment with the "least competitive intensity" relatively small for some time.

Regardless of what happens with the proposed trade agreements, the midsize pickup segment is likely to grow at a glacial pace. It might even spawn a smaller pickup segment that could provide a lower entry price yet still offer a good amount of carrying capability.

Cars.com photo by Evan Sears

 

 

Comments

A lot of emotion, but very little real understanding. By the way, I disagree with Mark's assessment that the mid-size and smaller market would see glacial growth. Why? Because glaciers are disappearing. (Ok, sarcasm finished.) No, there is a market out there for trucks smaller than what is currently available. I think mid-sized growth itself would make a very noticeable jump if their cost of production went down and quite honestly even with changes in safety equipment the cost of manufacturing overseas and shipping in whole products would still be lower than attempting to manufacture the same vehicle here in the US. Pretty much across the board, manufacturers have stated they wouldn't even consider manufacturing in the US unless they could ensure 100,000 unit minimum sales. If, on the other hand, they could be built right beside their domestic models on existing lines, the cost remains reasonably stable and they'll be able to 'feel out' the market before committing to any kind of local manufacturing.

Mark also forgets that GM and FCA both already have compact trucks being manufactured elsewhere. Were the Chicken Tax fully revoked, it wouldn't take much at all to upgrade their safety equipment for the US market and ship them in from South America. One of those is even now sold in Mexico as the Ram 700. If, as I and others certainly believe, that one of the reasons America's CUV market is so large simply because there are no true compact trucks, we could see a huge shift in compact vehicle sales from bubbles on wheels to true utilitarian rigs similar to but an upgrade from the 70s and 80s compacts as they would offer a family a utility vehicle still capable of serving as a commuter at a much lower cost of ownership than today's mid-size and larger trucks.

What effect might they have on those larger truck sales? That really depends on who is buying what for what purpose. Those needing a modern station-wagon replacement make stick to buying crew-cab full sizers. Of course, those needing a true working heavy hauler will stick to buying full-sizers--not necessarily crew cab. Others will stick to the current round of mid-sizers as they do offer some advantages over full-size in their agility and parkability. No, the compacts will be for those who have no need for massive towing and hauling ability. They will be for those who have only the occasional need to carry something too big or too dirty to throw in the back of an enclosed cabin. They will be for the young singles and empty-nesters or, as some love to crow, "the Hispanic gardener". I've been a member of those first two choices all my life.

Unlike most, I've never had a family in the sense of having kids myself and never will. My wife and I are quite content with a peaceful house with the only screaming and fighting being caused by our two cats and our big baby of a dog. I have never really needed a full-sized truck, though as most here know I did own one for a while due to a need for anything with an open bed large enough to carry some yard-sale tables. That truck's 8' bed was ideal for the purpose as I could carry the tables with the tailgate closed, but I could have easily gotten away with something significantly smaller without sacrificing all that much capability. And I certainly didn't and don't need four full doors on a pickup truck. An extended cab on the other hand would have been eminently useful. And again, I know for a fact that I'm not alone in these thoughts.

Heh. Ever notice how I tend to close these conversations on PUTC now? Maybe it's because I'm making sense and others here don't want to admit it--especially as their fantasies get shot down one by one.

The article lacks a few things, including common sense.

"...tariff imposed to protect American car companies."

Actually the purpose of the tariff was to impose or fire back retaliation for the Euro tax on US poultry. That was huge blow for the US poultry industry.

The VW transporter was hardly crushing any US pickup and flatbed market share. Barely a blip on the 'radar'.

Btw, the Chicken tax did absolute zero to slow the Mini-Truck Craze/Trend/Circus. So what allowed import pickups to flood the US market then, but stops them now?

In the time that's past, the Chicken tax has come to "protect" lots of vehicles for sale in the US, but GM, Ford and Ram fullsize pickups are hardly any of them.

So ridiculous.

1st to take a hit from the "flood" of imported global pickups and vans would be things like the Tacoma, Frontier, Colorado/Canyon, Ridgeline, NV200, Transit Connect, Xb, Cube, Edge, and similar. (drrr...)

Then the CUVs, wagons, minivans, etc, of the US market. Certainly various sedans, and eventually "impacting" the Tundra, Titan, F-150, Silverado/Sierra and Ram.

Let's get real.

Then there's this little nugget:

"...the 25 percent "chicken tax"..."

Um, there's something called a "loophole" the article kinda forgot to mention. It's like the lesser of 2 evils. Except much, much less.

The article, including the AN link, are going after what ever drama they can conjure up, and the least knowledgeable around here eat it up. Keeping in mind the general pop, and a few here are hearing about the Chicken tax for the 1st time.

The AN article doesn't know the Ford is not bringing the Ranger to the US, no way, no how. It has nothing to do with the Chicken tax. So why would Ford allow the Mazda BT50?

And it's not like the Toyota would sell the Hilux next to the Tacoma, nor Nissan the Navara next to the Frontier.

Why don't they stick to stuff they know about?

"Um, there's something called a "loophole" the article kinda forgot to mention. It's like the lesser of 2 evils. Except much, much less."
-- A loophole that got closed in 1980 or so which finally stopped the import of most of those trucks. Only Toyota and Nissan survived by already having plants in the US or Mexico which could pick up some of the slack, but didn't affect the cost all that much due to higher US labor rates. Isuzu and Mitsubishi essentially disappeared shortly thereafter, though Mitsubishi did make an attempt to re-ignite its pickup market--with a truck too much larger than its previous model and didn't have a US auto company buying to support the needed production to make it worth their while--which is why Mitsubishi disappeared again.

" Keeping in mind the general pop, and a few here are hearing about the Chicken tax for the 1st time."
-- I highly doubt that, considering the number of times the Chicken Tax has been argued on PUTC over the years.

"The AN article doesn't know the Ford is not bringing the Ranger to the US, no way, no how. It has nothing to do with the Chicken tax. So why would Ford allow the Mazda BT50?"
-- Ford has no direct say on what Mazda chooses to do. Worse though, if the Mazda succeeds even on the level that the Colorado/Canyon are doing now, Ford will be forced to bring in the Ranger despite their previous arguments. I'm not so certain they're going to stick to the "No Way, No How" statement anyway considering what the GM twins are doing.

"And it's not like the Toyota would sell the Hilux next to the Tacoma, nor Nissan the Navara next to the Frontier."
-- Actually, they could very easily do so and very probably realize that by consolidating their pickup truck models would ultimately save money on engineering.
Ford is right on one thing, if you want to reduce costs, you need to make the same vehicles available to all customers on a global basis. Perhaps some will sell better in a given region than others, but that will usually be balanced by the others buying what the one region doesn't want. Fiat is proving that fairly well by exporting Chrysler models to Europe and selling them under another brand name with (typically) minor modifications in engine and appointments. Even the new Maseratis are modified Chryslers more often than not. So when it comes to pickup trucks, there's a strong chance that removal of the Chicken Tax will see an influx of different truck models to, if nothing else, feel out the market.

"...A loophole that got closed in 1980 or so which finally stopped the import of most of those trucks..."

That's crazy. The wild Mini-Truck Craze hadn't even started by Dec 31, 1979, when the cab/chassis loophole closed. They'd have the beds sourced and installed in the US, thus the trucks were "completed" in the US. After 1979, imported trucks were finished in the US with Complete Knock Down kits or CKDs. But no OEM paid the Chicken tax. That'd be stupid when they didn't have to, with a much cheaper way to do it.

"...Isuzu and Mitsubishi essentially disappeared shortly thereafter (1979)..."

The Isuzu and Mitsu pickup sales were growing exponentially, 1980 and beyond.

"...Only Toyota and Nissan survived by already having plants in the US or Mexico which could pick up some of the slack, but didn't affect the cost all that much due to higher US labor rates..."

Toyota and Nissan (Datsun at the time) were busy building assembly plants for their cars while their pickup continued to be imported with CKDs, eventually fully assembling pickups in the US.

Today, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Honda, whoever, can build cars where ever they want, but still choose the US and Mexico. There's no limit to what they can import, like the early '80s, "Voluntary" cap.

Mazda, Isuzu and Mitsu never got around to setting up full assembly lines for their pickups in the US. Demand was too small and dropping rapidly by around '85, '86. Time to move on.

"...I highly doubt that, considering the number of times the Chicken Tax has been argued on PUTC over the years..."

There's a constant flow of new names on PUTC, but I was mostly referring to the readers of Automotive News.

"...Ford has no direct say on what Mazda chooses to do..."

What?? You don't think Ford would mind the BT50 competing with Ford cars, CUVs, mini-vans, etc, in the US?

"...if the Mazda succeeds even on the level that the Colorado/Canyon are doing now, Ford will be forced to bring in the Ranger despite their previous arguments..."

Why would they be "forced" to enter a then over-saturated market, they already want no part of??

"...I'm not so certain they're going to stick to the "No Way, No How" statement anyway considering what the GM twins are doing..."

It's not a Monkey See Monkey Do. What does Ford have to combat the Corvette? The Volt? The (dead) Solstice? The dying fullsize van? GM sells them, but is the profit worth it? Is there ANY profit??

"...Actually, they could very easily do so and very probably realize that by consolidating their pickup truck models would ultimately save money on engineering..."

We're not talking about "consolidating". Yes that's a better idea, but the AN article was talking about "importing" over the Hilux. What then? Sell it next to the Tacoma??


"...Ford is right on one thing, if you want to reduce costs, you need to make the same vehicles available to all customers on a global basis. Perhaps some will sell better in a given region than others, but that will usually be balanced by the others buying what the one region doesn't want..."

Then why not sell the F-150, F-series, Expedition, Explorer in every market they sell in? OEMs choose carefully and by no means do they ever want to sell all their cars in every market they're in. Look at all the VWs not sold in US. Or Mercedes. Maybe you know better than them??

"...Fiat is proving that fairly well by exporting Chrysler models to Europe and selling them under another brand name with (typically) minor modifications in engine and appointments..."

There's a limited market in Europe and other places for US cars, but definitely not all. Our biggest sellers would the 1st place to start. Common sense. Like the Mustang and Cherokee. It's something they've never had before, eyed from a distance and 'grey market' imported them.

But midsize pickups, we already have fair selection. If more OEM seriously wanted a part of the US midsize truck market, they'd be here, chicken tax or not, just like the early '80s.


"...Even the new Maseratis are modified Chryslers more often than not. So when it comes to pickup trucks, there's a strong chance that removal of the Chicken Tax will see an influx of different truck models to, if nothing else, feel out the market..."

They could feel out the market better, without the Chicken tax, but look at all the world cars that don't sell in the US. No Chicken tax for them but they still don't come for a "feel". So wtf?

America isn't for everyone, I mean all OEMs. We don't like to pay a lot for the common, everyday stuff.

Yet we know disposable cars aren't worth it. Resale value drops at an alarming rate and even the junk yards don't want them after a few years old. We're a tough crowd. Very tough on OEMs. Some want no part of it.

"That's crazy. The wild Mini-Truck Craze hadn't even started by Dec 31, 1979, when the cab/chassis loophole closed."
Really? And what about all those Japanese and badge-engineered compact pickup trucks BEFORE 1979, hmmm? Did they somehow get moved back in time after they were imported? -- but then, you always did try to twist things to make it look like you are right. For instance:

"...Isuzu and Mitsubishi essentially disappeared shortly thereafter (1979)..." --- Ummm... When did 1979 come AFTER 1980? Since I said "shortly thereafter", then I obviously meant AFTER 1980 and IIRC the last Mitsubishi pickup was sold in the states around '85--roughly the same year the Dodge Dakota was brought to market and Dodge's Mitsubishi badge-engineering was ended.

"Toyota and Nissan (Datsun at the time) were busy building assembly plants for their cars while their pickup continued to be imported with CKDs, eventually fully assembling pickups in the US." -- So you're agreeing with me there.

"Today, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Honda, whoever, can build cars where ever they want, but still choose the US and Mexico. There's no limit to what they can import, like the early '80s, "Voluntary" cap." -- Cars are not trucks and Mazda and Subaru decided not to build trucks here because of the cost of building a plant for such a limited product. I would also note that all of the brands you mentioned only decided to build plants here AFTER the truck imports were shut down and their cars were still proving popular enough as imports. There comes a point where it's cheaper to build locally than shipping overseas and the tiny car market exploded after the 1972 oil crunch--as did the truck market. Even now, the Chicken tax ONLY affects vehicles not primarily intended for passenger service; that's one reason why Subie and Honda played their 'station wagon with a porch' game as it was quite obvious the beds were too small to be considered a 'working' truck.

"Why would they be "forced" to enter a then over-saturated market, they already want no part of??" -- Why would they choose to ignore easy money when smaller trucks do start taking sales away from the bigger ones? I hate to say it Denver, but a lot of people are beginning to realize just how bloated those full-sized trucks really are.

"We're not talking about "consolidating". Yes that's a better idea, but the AN article was talking about "importing" over the Hilux. What then? Sell it next to the Tacoma??" -- Yup. Until they see which truck is really the more popular, then they'd probably make that truck their 'global' model for all markets. Right now the Hilux has the advantage since it's the primary model sold in every other market.

"Then why not sell the F-150, F-series, Expedition, Explorer in every market they sell in? OEMs choose carefully and by no means do they ever want to sell all their cars in every market they're in. Look at all the VWs not sold in US. Or Mercedes. Maybe you know better than them??" -- I gather you haven't noticed how the F-series, Expidition, Explorer and other large models simply don't sell well in other markets; they're too big for some and too thirsty for others. On the other hand, the Ford Focus and Fiesta are pretty popular around the US despite their smaller size. And both the Focus and the Fiesta are Ford Europe designs.

"There's a limited market in Europe and other places for US cars, but definitely not all. Our biggest sellers would the 1st place to start. Common sense. Like the Mustang and Cherokee. It's something they've never had before, eyed from a distance and 'grey market' imported them." -- But the Jeeps are the ones really hitting it off big overseas, not the Mustang. We'll just have to see how well the new 4-cylinder Mustangs do though, they may just be a game-changer--for the US that is. After all, even it is on a more European platform now than an American one.

"But midsize pickups, we already have fair selection. If more OEM seriously wanted a part of the US midsize truck market, they'd be here, chicken tax or not, just like the early '80s." -- Two models is NOT a "fair selection", and despite the label GM has put onto the C-twins, they're not "mid-sized", they're the same size as 1990's full-sized trucks and even some published auto reviewers are making that statement now. Mid-sized should be the same size as the 2014 Frontier or 2005 Dakota. A 1990 Ranger could be called 'compact' by comparison as it's notably smaller than the things they're now calling mid-sized.

"They could feel out the market better, without the Chicken tax, but look at all the world cars that don't sell in the US. No Chicken tax for them but they still don't come for a "feel". So wtf?" -- Really? Where did the Kias come from if they didn't "feel out" the market? Where did Hyundai come from if they didn't 'feel out' the market? We clearly watched Suzuki 'feel out' the market. Some of them succeeded, others failed. Why not give the global and compact trucks the opportunity to do the same?

I didn't say mini-trucks weren't imported before Dec, 1979, except the "Craze" didn't take hold until a couple years later.

"...Isuzu and Mitsubishi essentially disappeared shortly thereafter (1979)..."

That was you're statement, not mine. You said Isuzu and Mitsu disappeared right after the cab/chassis loophole closed (1979). Not even true, which I've explained.

You're wrong again. The Mitsu Mighty Max went on until 1996. Its 'badge' cousin the D50 sold along side the Dakota from '87 on. Except the D50 stopped in '93.

http://www.sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/5095586046.html

"...Cars are not trucks and Mazda and Subaru decided not to build trucks here because of the cost of building a plant for such a limited product..."

I didn't say cars were trucks. The import embargo or cap, was on cars only. All Japanese OEMs were forced to build cars in the US, except after the embargo/cap was lifted a couple years later, they saw no reason to stop building most of their cars in the US. It makes sense to build them in the US, right? (And since NAFTA, Mexico too). So whatever that reasoning is, why shouldn't it apply to Japanese pickups?

"...I would also note that all of the brands you mentioned only decided to build plants here AFTER the truck imports were shut down and their cars were still proving popular enough as imports..."

You're all confused. But what was "shut down"?

Those Japanese brands were forced by the embargo/cap to build in the US. It turned out to be a great move though. So why would it be a better to keep building pickups in Japan if they could?

So what was shut down?


"...There comes a point where it's cheaper to build locally than shipping overseas and the tiny car market exploded after the 1972 oil crunch--as did the truck market..."

So what's the problem? You act like it's killing them to build Tacomas, Frontiers, Colorados/Canyons and Ridgelines in North America.

"...Even now, the Chicken tax ONLY affects vehicles not primarily intended for passenger service; that's one reason why Subie and Honda played their 'station wagon with a porch' game as it was quite obvious the beds were too small..."

Subaru and Honda have never been serious about pickups enough, so they play around with fwd (awd) platforms, formed into pickup bodies. What does that have to do with the Chicken tax?

"...Why would they choose to ignore easy money..."

Who says it's "easy money"? Easy for the dealer, they can't lose. The OEM is different story. Let's not confuse the two.


"...when smaller trucks do start taking sales away from the bigger ones?..."

What does this mean? The Colorado/Canyon taking away Ram/F-150 sales? Or taking away Silverado/Sierra sales?


"...I hate to say it Denver, but a lot of people are beginning to realize just how bloated those full-sized trucks really are..."

I seem more people think they're just right. At least the people showing up with checkbooks in hand. And fullsize pickup OEMs are just giving in to what *real* paying customers are looking for and demand. OEMs are just along for the ride. Anything else is just internet chatter, as far as they're concerned.


"...Yup. Until they see which truck is really the more popular, then they'd probably make that truck their 'global' model for all markets..."

Really? You really think Toyota would sell the Tacoma and Hilux side by side?? What a stup!d waste that'd be! Why not put the best of both on the Hilux and kill the aging Tacoma?

"...I gather you haven't noticed how the F-series, Expidition, Explorer and other large models simply don't sell well in other markets; they're too big for some and too thirsty for others..."

I noticed. But you're not following along. Ford, VW, Toyota, Mercedes and others, have very regional and market-specific vehicles. They're not about to throw everything they have into every market. Where's the Falcon? Why does it stay in OZ?

"...Two models is NOT a "fair selection"..."

Don't forget the Ridgeline. We had more, but we chose not to choose them. And where were you? That's right, you left the mini-truck segment for something else, like most everyone else. So they went away.

We have 6 choices in fullsize pickups, but only need the 3 biggest. Except OEMs are just following the money. How many choices in compact roadsters do we have? A couple? Is that the fault of the OEMs? Or the people that don't buy them much??


'...and despite the label GM has put onto the C-twins, they're not "mid-sized"...

They're bigger than mini-trucks and smaller that fullsize. Sounds mid-size to me.

"...they're the same size as 1990's full-sized trucks and even some published auto reviewers are making that statement now..."

That's plain wrong. Check the facts and while you're at it, try mounting an old 'selfcontained"
fullsize cabover camper off a '90s fullsize pickup to a midsize pickup... Can I watch? I'll bring the popcorn!

"...Really? Where did the Kias come from if they didn't "feel out" the market? Where did Hyundai come from if they didn't 'feel out' the market? We clearly watched Suzuki 'feel out' the market..."

I didn't say I hasn't been done with success. To many have failed though. And how many of the world's cars are missing from the US market? That would take a while to list. It's just not a market suited for all OEMs. It's tough if you haven't noticed.

"...Some of them succeeded, others failed. Why not give the global and compact trucks the opportunity to do the same?..."

I don't have a problem with having more choices in midsize or compact pickups. Without the Chicken tax, we may have a couple more choices. If you're expecting a flood, or part II of the mini-truck craze, you need to get a grip. Seriously though.

Good posts, Denver. Roadwhile or whatever his name is, is a very confused old man. smh.

Problem is going to be finding a market for U.S. pickups and Commercial vehicles outside NA. It appears the Europeans want to sell more of their product in NA and not just their Vans

Robert Ryan,
I do not foresee a huge dumping of full size pickups when/if the chicken tax dissolves.

The impact will be felt more with real trucks and commercial vehicles. This is where the chicken tax has its largest bite.

The 1/2 ton market is pretty much a SUV/Car segment and will be impacted far less.

Even reading most of the comments on PUTC over the years one realises most only look at 0-60 times, who can tow the most even though most who comment would struggle backing a boat down a boat ramp.

I do think mid sizers could double or even triple in numbers easily. Due to the size of the mid size market this is not huge. But this would not occur overnight.

Allowing the importation of pickups will also force the obscene profits on pickup in the US to become more realistic so the consumer is not ripped off.

@Robert Ryan - The Europeans have their own "Chicken tax", 22% import duty on trucks to the EU, critics seem to ignore or are ignorant about. How about you?

Yet the Europeans want the Chicken tax gone? How nice.

@BAFO - Fullsize pickups, excluding the Titan and Tundra, have obscene pre-tax profits from insane volume. Up to and exceeding two million annual truck sales between the "Big 3". Otherwise they'd be only as "profitable" as the Titan or Tundra.

Take away that ridiculous volume, and you take away most of their profits.

A lot of metal has to be moved, and fast. At an insane pace, actually. I'd say Ford, GM, Ram, work hard and hustle for the money.

Picture one new truck (by each of the "Big 3") built/completed every minute, 24 hours a day, everyday. Try orchestrating that madness.

But are consumers being "ripped off"?? They can buy the Titan or Tundra if they feel they want most of their money spent on materials, labour, marketing, etc, in order to get a "fair" deal.

Meanwhile, the top 'revenue producing' German models, S-class, E-class, 3 and 5-series, are quietly raking in almost as much cash as the "top 3" OEM pickups, while only selling a tiny fraction of those pickup's manufacturing volume/sales.

When the Chicken tax is gone, the couple new entrants will chip away at fullsize trucks, including the Tundra and Titan, but mostly they'll eat away at sales of the Tacoma, Frontier, Colorado, Canyon, Ridgeline, Escape, Cube, Flex, xB, Connect, NV200, to name a few. Plus CUVs, wagons, minivans, etc. Some sedans will feel the pinch too.

Even the Titan and Tundra have about zero to fear, when the Chicken tax is gone.


Hard to predict what will happen with the Chicken Tax.

One thing's for sure, the US dollar has been quietly picking up steam for the last couple of years and its impact on the price of imported goods cannot be underestimated.

In the meantime the demand for commodities like gold or oil is flat and oil price per barrel has crashed in a short time.

Amazing how things change in just a couple of years.

""...Isuzu and Mitsubishi essentially disappeared shortly thereafter (1979)..."

That was you're statement, not mine. You said Isuzu and Mitsu disappeared right after the cab/chassis loophole closed (1979). Not even true, which I've explained."

No it wasn't; the date specified in your supposed quote was placed there by you. All anyone has to do is backtrack just a few comments to see where you purposely misconstrued my argument and put "1979" into it. 1979 does not come AFTER 1980, no matter how hard you try to make the math work. And 1984 is AFTER 1980 by only four years, making it "shortly thereafter" by most books when we're talking about an event now 35 years old.

By purposely misconstruing statements and twisting people's words, all you do is make yourself out as a person who has to win by cheating if he can't win any other way.

@Vulpine - Stop already. Those are your words exactly. I only added the "(1979)" clarification. That doesn't make them "my words", just because you want to take them back.

You seem to think right after the bed/chassis/loophole ended, the market started to disappear. Clearly you're wrong about the sequence of events, which shoots down your entire theory. But you're not even arguing that now.

So why are we arguing minutiae semantics instead of what really happened in the history of small pickups??

Well I'll explain your error again in case you still don't get it. Between the end of that specific "loophole" and the end of the Mini-Truck Craze, there was the entire "Craze".

The rise and fall all happened *after* the loophole ended. The "rise" part is what you need to focus on...

Except I only use "1979" because if I say "1980", you'll see it as "1980s" (as when the loophole ended). You've made that mistake before. It's confusing for you as it is.

Write this down and memorize it: The actual end date for the loophole was December 31, 1979.

But where were you? I just turned 16, new drivers licence and smack in the middle of it, So. California, 1984 when the Craze absolutely exploded!! Insane is all I can say..

It would be interesting to see the VW Saveiro, Amarok and Transporter T6 in North America.



The comments to this entry are closed.